Supreme Court Upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban

[Bigdaddydvo]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/18/sc...ion/index.html

About time. I always thought this ban was one area where pro-lifers and pro-choice folks could find common ground.

[slickpoppa]

Kang: Abortions for all!
Audience: BOO!
Kang: Okay... Abortions for none!
Audience: BOO!
Kang: Hmmnn... Abortions for some, tiny American flags for others!
Audience: YAAY!!!

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
Kang: Abortions for all!
Audience: BOO!
Kang: Okay... Abortions for none!
Audience: BOO!
Kang: Hmmnn... Abortions for some, tiny American flags for others!
Audience: YAAY!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice Treehouse of Horror reference.

[Huh?]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/18/sc...ion/index.html

About time. I always thought this ban was one area where pro-lifers and pro-choice folks could find common ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pro choice and don't have a problem with this..though doesn't it only ban one type of late term abortion not all post 12 week abortions?

[iron81]

Dialation & Extraction (Partial Birth) abortion is only performed on fetuses older than 24 weeks. And yes, there are other types of late-term abortions that are still legal.

[Huh?]

Obama came out and said he disagrees with it...
guess he doesn't have much of a choice given he's a dem.

[XXXNoahXXX]

[ QUOTE ]
Dialation & Extraction (Partial Birth) abortion is only performed on fetuses older than 24 weeks. And yes, there are other types of late-term abortions that are still legal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have it a little wrong.

The ban is on "intact dilation and evacuation" (IDX), which is only used in 5% of second trimester abortions, but not "dilation and evacuation" (D&E) which is used in the other 95%. Am I wrong with this?


Also, why not have a "health exception"?

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]


Also, why not have a "health exception"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because there isn't a single health instance where performing a partial-birth abortion 8-9 months into a pregnancy is advantageous to a woman's health vs. delivering a live child via ceasarian.

Additionally, I wave the preemptive B.S. flag on anyone that tries the "mother's mental health" card. A loophole that large would practically nullify the intent of the law, which is to prevent the killing of a fully developed preborn human child.

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, why not have a "health exception"?

[/ QUOTE ] Because the health exception creates a loophole so large you could drive a truck through it. The courts have held that health includes mental health, so all a physician that wants to perform the procedure has to do is state that the mental health of the mother might be adversely affected if she doesn't have the procedure.

I'm pro-choice, but I really have been unable to see why this procedure is medically necessary. After all, you pull it out a few more inches and have a live birth, even if it would be a premature one with little chance of survival. Killing the live birth would be a crime. Since it's dangerously close to infanticide, the ban was unheld, but there are alternative procedures, still pretty gruesome, that don't approach that limit.

I can see why hardcore pro-choicers would defend the procedure, they see it as a slippery slope, but I think in their hearts, they really know they can't defend it. Sort of like when John Wayne Gacy was on Death Row, the anti-capital punishment crowd complained, but they weren't about to make him into a poster boy, as there wasn't much support to defend him.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
I can see why hardcore pro-choicers would defend the procedure, they see it as a slippery slope

[/ QUOTE ]
From a cold strategic view, they need to be worry about a slippery slope. It is not as if this victory is going to do anything but move the pro-lifers into the next battleground.

fwiw - I think this procedure is absolutely sickening and it is shocking that anyone would defend it for any reason.